if he did what he is accused of fine. But who has ever been accused of that and then jailed in this fashion unable to post bond? First time he's ever been charged with anything like this? There's some serious railroading going on right now!

Appealed the bail, and there had to be another hearing (the one held today) within 48 hours by Britain's high court. I don't know about British law, but looking over the Bail Act of 1976, it appears that holding him for another 48 hours is allowed. At least, this line from the Bail Act leads me to believe this is not completely out of the realm.

On an application for reconsideration of a bail decision, the court may impose or vary bail conditions or withhold bail altogether (s5B Bail Act 1976, as inserted by the CJPOA 1994).

I'm not sure if the Swedes had standing to appeal bail. Doesn't seem like anything funny there. It would be the same kind of thing same if a Georgia prosecutor wanted to appeal bail set for a defendant in a New York courtroom. It would have to be the NY prosecutor who appealed.

British law so that I could know if he was being railroaded with more certainty.

In any case two incredibly incriminating cables have been released while he is behind bars. I'm thinking that the man behind the curtain wants him released so they can track him and follow him, try to get a grasp of the network and try to get this stuff shut down. Some people out there must be losing their minds.

now. He is just the founder. When you need information, capture is preferred....often mandated :) No small fry tater nation is going to off him while the industrialized West needs to figure out how to shut this stuff down :)

too with the State Department cables. The State Department knew that BP was literally a time bomb looking for a place to happen and it also knew that the banks were insolvent and beginning to plan how to get the governments of the industrialized nations to bail them out at least six months in advance of the "crisis". This stuff is incriminating as hell to our current leadership. No wonder they want Assange's head on a plate. But you can jail him and Wikileaks runs on its own. Wonder if they can buy him? Plant a mole? This is going to get wild as hell.

where people like to size up facts and do a good job of talking about them without flaming the discussions into oblivion. But you understand that for the most part, everyone else up to this point was pretty sure we were the ones who were nuts :)?

But if it is happening now, then by the time it goes to trial his mental state is likely to be beyond repair.

Of course it is likely partly a defense strategy. What difference does that possibly make?

Did you read Greenwald's post? If so, did you read the Update where the substance of his post is confirmed? If so, you would know there is NOT a big difference between Jeralyn's post and how he is being treated.

Bradly Manning is not some hacker mastermind, or a spy, or anything other than a low level guy who had access to systems which were poorly thought out (if maintaining secrets was the goal) and insecure. That's all he is. Holding him for 23 hours a day in solitary does nothing to increase the security of the United States. It's unnecessary and frankly, the conditions under which he is being held can't reasonably be seen as anything other than punitive.

eventually forgive him....remember that for the most part he is still a kid. They would want him to have the possibility of some kind of life again at some point. He didn't really leak anything that big. All of his reports were from enlisted and low level officers. It isn't as if he leaked the evidence of the leaderships conversations about the use of white phosphorous to "light up" Fallujah vs. melting the people that remained in Fallujah.

But the military is its own beast, and it forgives nothing like this ever because an example is being made and it will resemble granite.

Butif he truly gave up classified secrets - would most people want to forgive him? He's been in trouble before with the military - including losing a rank for assaulting another soldier. He doesn't make himself out to be a very symapthetic figure.

is that it is all about torture. You have shamed your country and yourself, you are the most worthless scum on the globe and you are told that and shown that and try to survive that every single hour of every single day. And you try to live among a very large group of usually well trained to kill sociopaths.

He's doomed and he is completely under their control. But a lot of really good people much loved by the world were poorly preforming soldiers. The very best soldiers are very dysfunctional people by psychological standards :)

So I will never take any joy from the fact that who he is as a person will be utterly destroyed long before they are finished with him. I have heard that Leavenworth will make you forget how to even be a human being.

He gave away low level stuff though IMO, he probably didn't have a very high security clearance. I don't know how he maintained his position though except that perhaps being shorthanded played a part and the fact that once you are over there they will attempt to keep you there because every set of hands is needed. Nobody probably ever fancied that he'd do what he did.

Sometimes they accuse soldiers of doing things too trying to avoid a deployment by creating "issues" that have to be resolved. I've known of commanders who brushed off people committing certain offenses as them trying to stay stateside and then it seems like they immediately shift into this "well you are going no matter what" gear.

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing "almost criminal political back dealings."

His favorite stuff, allegedly, was the diplomatic stuff:

That seemed to be the least interesting information to Manning, however. What seemed to excite him most in his chats was his supposed leaking of the embassy cables. He anticipated returning to the states after his early discharge, and watching from the sidelines as his action bared the secret history of U.S. diplomacy around the world.

"Everywhere there's a U.S. post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed," Manning wrote. "It's open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It's Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It's beautiful, and horrifying."

And as for his security clearance:

Manning told Lamo that he enlisted in the Army in 2007 and held a Top Secret/SCI clearance, details confirmed by his friends and family members.

SNIP

Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level.

State Department stuff. I can tell you for sure that a PFC on any network would only have access to need to know stuff. Either there is some really stupid network administrator somewhere (very possible), or he had help on that stuff from another source.

Believe it or not, all the info Manning had access to up to and including the diplomatic cables was available to upwards of 3 million people. Your claim that "I can tell you for sure that a PFC on any network would only have access to need to know stuff" was not correct at the time when Manning copied the data. (The system has since been changed to restrict access.)

Thanks for the info. 3 million people, wow! Was that 3 million Army people or was it other government people also? I should clarify my comment "I can tell you for sure that a PFC on any network would only have access to need to know stuff", that's how it would normally be set up. Obviously the reality of it was different.

I know when I was over there the majority of people with clearances had access to the SIPRNET. Stateside it's a whole different game, I wouldn't even know where a SIPRNET computer is here. That was what I was talking about also about the computer administrators. There are tons of them that are the same rank as that PFC. Imagine some 20 year old Private having that kind of responsibility.

and I only know that because I know someone who works there. The security measures around the whole area and the people that work there are nothing short of intense as hell. It makes me sort of nervous to even be around it sometimes, and I'm rarely ever, but the rare is enough for me :)

After the September 11 attacks, SIPRNet was expanded to help U.S. agencies share classified information more easily, with virtually all embassies and consulates on the system. A 1993 GAO report estimated more than 3 million U.S. military and civilian personnel had the clearance to access SIPRNet, although it remains unclear as to how many people now actually have roles that allow them to do so. The hope was to spur communication of the kind of vital clues that might have prevented that catastrophe. These links, ironically, probably helped WikiLeaks's informant get access to confidential diplomatic messages.

The US embassy cables are marked "Sipdis" - secret internet protocol distribution. They were compiled as part of a programme under which selected dispatches, considered moderately secret but suitable for sharing with other agencies, would be automatically loaded on to secure embassy websites, and linked with the military's Siprnet internet system.

They are classified at various levels up to "secret noforn" [no foreigners]. More than 11,000 are marked secret, while around 9,000 of the cables are marked noforn.

More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect".

I'm often amazed at how wrong people's assumptions are and/or how many gaps there are in their information on the news. It's hard to keep up. Fortunately, I am blessed (or cursed) with a very good memory. Stuff sticks. Sometimes I don't remember where I found it and I have to dig, but this bit of news was reported in numerous places even if I wouldn't call it "widely reported."

My friend that works there, I didn't know they worked there for the first three years that I knew them. Not that it mattered where they worked, that wasn't why they were my friend. I was surprised though to eventually know a little tiny bit about their job and that is exactly what I know too.....a thimble's worth! The topic is never open for discussion...NEVER

an old post, but I'm bored today and was reading back. But SIPRNET isn't really that big of a deal in the intel world. Its basically a secret internet, used mainly for emailing classified information. Whatever place that you saw that had sipr on that base must have had something else as well. On the base I was in Sipr is in most battalion HQ buildings and up, I'd say most S2 offices have it, its locked up in some way. But doesn't really have to be guarded, other than by alarm.
I wouldn't say there are mutliple levels of sipr just difference access rights that people have, the same as in any company, only people with payroll information has access to payroll data, just like they don't have access to R&D data, but its most likely all on the same network.
But like anywhere, people are careless, and if he got the data in Iraq that makes even more since, since security goes out the window if it impedes completing a mission.
Anyway, just trying to clear up things about SIPR.

And with everything else coming out via these leaks, Bradley Manning is a good guy, I will bank on it. Our glorious leaders, clearly, are the bad guys/gals here, and they can all drop dead: From Obama and Hillary on down, every one of the useless and supposed Dems who go along with this totalitarian garbage that they KNOW is destroying this nation far more than one leaker. Phuck them all, get them in the ground soon, I need graves to piss on.

That Khaddafi has a blond mistress or a diplomat thinks an ambassador's wife is fat?

The abuses perpetrated in our name - yes, we should know about. But this other stuff is just gossip and actually hurts diplomacy. For any bleeding heart liberal who values diplomacy over things like war - leaks of this kind are not good news.

Keeping these cables quiet was neither advancing diplomacy nor preventing war. Some of us bleeding heart liberals see that. And some of us bleeding heart liberals see that, in general, transparency is better than secrecy.

And you do have a way of finding the dross and then painting all the information with that brush. So don't use that brush when/if responding to my "in general" comment above.

I don't. This kind of stuff has nothing to do with anything, but is fit for a gossip rag. If you think that helps diplomacy, so be it - I disagree. This kind of stuff has nothing to do with diplomacy, but is instead the kind of thing that makes 7th grade girls all atwitter.

why is the state department behaving like they work for Page Six? Why do they care Khadafi has a blonde bombshell nurse?

When the cables first broke, I was taken aback by how closely international diplomacy resembles a junior high school cafeteria...and appreciated the insight into why the world is perpetually at odds with itself...everybody is talking trash behind the other's back.

From the Wikipedia, not for use for academic research or very small children:

At a July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again." As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.

..................................

Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Among his highly critical statements regarding the Bush Administration, Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".[11] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.[12][13]

Donald Kerrick. [Source: White House]Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, had become "totally preoccupied" with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/2002] Brian Sheridan, Clinton's outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. "I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up." [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton's NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton's advisers met "nearly weekly" on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] were doing." [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, "We are going to be struck again." He says, "They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn't see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as." Kerrick adds, "They were gambling nothing would happen." [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004] Bush's first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated "to the back burner" until 9/11.

"At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

It is of interest to me if this lame @ss govt is wasting my money sponsoring people who are nothing more than gossip columnists and then wasting more money trying to keep their back stabbing gossip 'secret'.

It's just another level of corruption... creating jobs for someone's offspring with no real skills to perpetuate the war machine that is making billionaires richer.

cables that matters as much as what they reveal about the culture and atmosphere within the State Department, and I think it's probably designed to lower our opinion of the people who work there. When the content of the more substantive cables are considered, it's now hard to do so without thinking that these are the same people whose trash talk and gossip show how little respect they have for the leaders and diplomatic corps of other countries.

It makes what they were doing seem worse - if that's possible - than if all that had been released were the "important" materials.

In much the same way that you have used the gossipy article about Bradley Manning to influence how others look at what he has admitted to doing.

Just as Bradley Manning is made to seem more unstable and unreliable - and that is not to say he doesn't have his problems - so do the Page Six-style cables lower our opinion of our diplomatic corps and cast their more substantive actions is a much more negative light.

The problem is that it still doesn't change what the cables reveal about what kinds of things our State Department was engaging in - in our name - and we have only seen the tip of that iceberg.

The leaks were just all over the map about everything.....The idea is apparently to embarrasss the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassing us.

No grand conspiracy was uncovered....just more details of what was generally already publicly known or assumed....but those details will burn the contacts of our diplomatic people.

Anarchy it does promote....

So, I would agree our diplomatic efforts at the State Department have taken a hit--and, so I could see how that could (theoretically) harm peace and leave us only the neocon answer to everything. And for no really coherent reason....

Secrets are not always inherently bad. Lawyers keep the secrets of their clients. As do doctors. Diplomacy requires that the State Department be discreet.

The idea wasn't embarrassment for the sake of embarrassment. The idea was to show the people that what their government tells them it's doing and what it is actually doing are often not the same thing. The idea was to help inform the citizenry. Because if the citizenry isn't actually informed, then the citizenry doesn't actually know what it is they are supporting, and does not have a chance to withdraw that support if what is happening is the opposite of what they believe theyr are supporting.

...playing out. Maybe you should reserve judgment. And regardless of how it plays out, the principle stands as a good one. Secrecy for secrecy's sake is not a recipe for good government. Open the curtains and let some sunshine in.

is because your comment expressed concern on the one hand about the ravages of political decisions made, then--at two points--wished for death on those involved. Not only is that a bit much; frankly, you expose yourself as no different than what you condemn. Or, is it hyperbole?

She may be a little hawkish for my tastes, but I am glad she is Secretary of State....

She has been very good to the people of Guatemala. Nothing in it for her. The people of Guatemala don't rate at all. But she was instrumental in having all kinds of State Department records offically released (including those on the 1954 CIA coup)--when Bill was President; she validated Sr. Dianna Ortiz when she was conducting her vigil outside the Whitehouse to bring attention to her account of being tortured in a facility controlled by an American; and she just disclosed the program to give STDs to Guatemalans in the early 1950s. There is no political upside for Hillary in any of this. Guatemalans don't vote and don't contribute money. Those here who know of them are a tiny, tiny group.....

Hillary has demonstrated good humanitarian instincts....

Leaking this gossip seems pointless. Making Hillary's job harder is not good.

cable that it was a big British bank President that it seems kicked off the planning on how to get the industrialized governments to pay for the global insolvency. People in Britain have a tendency to riot. I bet the British government is $hitting itself today.

I can sit here all day and tell myself that the government had to know that BP was being insane based on their track record and inspections, and I can sit here all day and tell myself that the bailout was no crisis....just engineering and the government has to be complicit. But it is more comforting to be a "conspiracy theorist" as I'm often accused of than having to deal with the fact that I love deductive reasoning, it was all pretty obvious, and guess what? The conspiracies were and are really happening :)

that Jeralyn or BTD will open a thread on the rumor reported in Politico this morning that Obama will propose Social Security cuts in the upcoming State of the Union speech.

"The tax deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is just the first part of a multistage drama that is likely to further divide and weaken Democrats.

The second part, now being teed up by the White House and key Senate Democrats, is a scheme for the president to embrace much of the Bowles-Simpson plan -- including cuts in Social Security. This is to be unveiled, according to well-placed sources, in the president's State of the Union address."

the House has temporarily set aside plans to vote on the Tax Bill the Senate passed yesterday. It's pretty apparent there aren't enough votes for it to pass on a procedural basis at least, if not pass in general.

My impression of how this will go is much like the bailout votes in Sep-Oct 2008:

Most House Republicans will vote against it, regardless of how their colleagues in the Senate acted

If the Progressive Caucus stands united against its passage, it probably can't and won't pass.

Obama and Dem leadership will beat on progressives until they cave, probably early next week.

I'm holding out hope for the House to at least pass something different than the Senate, requiring it to ping pong back. I sincerely doubt the Senate can get a quorum between Christmas and New Year, so they'd probably need to get a House version no later than Wednesday or Thursday.

More than anything else, I'm disturbed about the damage that could be done to Social Security by temporarily reducing the payroll tax.

There is almost nothing in these leaks I haven't heard before in variety of countries and settings. Also, DoS (including USAID) and DoD are very tightly integrated these days and millions work for DoS one year and DoD the next. Same goes for journalists. One day they are on the news and the next day they are running communications at the embassy. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Americans. The military industrial complex is now our manufacturing base.

The whole clearance system has become nothing but a money making racket. It has nothing to do with security any longer (at the secret level anyway) and you don't need access to SIPR to know what is going on. This is our big national myth. You will find out more about what is going on in Afghanistan by visiting a few bars in Kabul on a Thursday night than sitting in a CIA listening post or the American Embassy. People forget the contractors, the military (for dinner of course:), State, USAID, etc go to them and the locals go there too. This is true all over the world. Go check out Georgetown at happy hour on a Friday night.

I don't know how Ruffian couldn't find a SIPR line. That is more surprising to me than 90% of the leaks lol

But as to overall knowledge and credibility of applied knowledge, weren't you were also the one who pronounced the war over when the Afghans said they were tossing the contractors out? That is not going to be a major issue, perhaps a minor one.

With all due respect, as a previous person pointed out earlier you have exactly zero experience working for the military, working in a war zone, holding a security clearance or experience with the State Dept. I actually have done all of these things. I do not recall saying the war is over TODAY. You don't turn an aircraft carrier around on a dime. It is starting to shut down. It is all moving to Africa. Follow the money.

The aid associated with this war will in fact end if there are no western security contractors guarding personnel. In fact, a number of firms have already started on contingency plans to withdraw from their contracts because it is getting to the point they can't be insured. Try reading the newspaper. Karzai has started shutting them down. He is also going after the biggest Afghan firms...those would be the ones that keep the supply lines going.

Contrary to your very limited military view, there is a big world outside of what you know about the military and the State Dept and what goes into prosecuting the war.

And yes I do take offense. I have actually risked my life for the last 6 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that gives me a bit of credibility on the subject. I would love to say more sister, but unlike you, I am ACTUALLY bound by rules. My opinion, based on experience however is not one of them.